France to ban veil says Nicolas SarkozyNicolas Sarkozy has said that France will ban the full Muslim veil.

The move would protect the dignity of women, the president added.

“The full veil is contrary to the dignity of women,” he said. “The response is to ban it. The Government will table a draft law prohibiting it.” The president gave no further details during his address to the nation following a heavy defeat in regional elections for his ruling Union for a Popular Movement party.

Speaking from the Elysee Palace Mr Sarkozy gave no indication as to how an outright ban would be imposed and policed.

France is home to six million Muslims.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

It has been interesting to watch the various Muslim groups bickering over it. The Muslim Canadian Congress completely supports it and has been petitioning the federal government for an outright ban for some time now, while the Muslim Council of Montreal is against it.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

I would temper your enthusiasm. If the state has the power to dictate the banning of the veil which, whether we agree or not, is a dictate of some Muslim women's faith, would it not possess the same power to ban, say - the wearing of clerical garb by an Orthodox Bishop, presbyter or monastic?

This is unfortunate. This is not something to be happy about, they are just decreasing the rights of people to follow their faith and gives victory to secularism. Like Islam or not, one shouldn't praise something like this. How will we feel when the rights of Christians in these countries are also infringed upon? The French government believes this decision protects the dignity of women but they will not give Muslim women the dignity of dressing how they wish. I believe a decision like this will only cause more uproar from the Muslim world.

This is unfortunate. This is not something to be happy about, they are just decreasing the rights of people to follow their faith and gives victory to secularism. Like Islam or not, one shouldn't praise something like this. How will we feel when the rights of Christians in these countries are also infringed upon? The French government believes this decision protects the dignity of women but they will not give Muslim women the dignity of dressing how they wish. I believe a decision like this will only cause more uproar from the Muslim world.

Well said.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

I don't think the banning of the veil will make any dent in "saving Europe from the darkness of Islam". It just means that it won't be as visible to the public eye.

I think we should be wary of any infringement on the rights of any religion. In France, they also do not allow children to wear any symbols of faith, for example a cross or a prayer rope bracelet thingy.... I agree with podkarpatska, the next logical step would be banning the all black-robe-head-covering attire all together. What would stop them from saying that Orthodox nuns are being oppressed in the same manner. We would lose all monasteries (and possibly churches) in France. I don't believe this step is anti-Islam, but rather secular to its foundations. At the point where the government gains control over religion....it's not looking good.

This is a silly law, and like all laws prohibiting a particular religious act, completely in violation of the EU's principle of freedom of religion. When people are oppressed, we should not be surprised if they strike back at their oppressors.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

This is a silly law, and like all laws prohibiting a particular religious act, completely in violation of the EU's principle of freedom of religion. When people are oppressed, we should not be surprised if they strike back at their oppressors.

Wow. You sound like me here.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

This quote from a discussion I had with a member of another board on this very issue is on point: "The history of France since the late 18th century was shaped by relations between the Catholic Church and the state. The Church was seen (quite rightly, too), as monarchist, reactionary and anti-democratic. Between the World Wars, the Church was so worried about communism that it threw its weight behind various neo-fascist as well as monarchist factions. After the fall of France, conservative Catholics--including quite a number of bishops--overwhelmingly backed the Vichy regime, which made an overt pitch for Catholic support by backing "faith, family, duty and country".

After the War, the piper had to be paid--not only the communists but also the Gaullists set out to limit the influence of the Church in French society by embedding secularism in the law--an objective in which they have succeeded all too well."

This is a silly law, and like all laws prohibiting a particular religious act, completely in violation of the EU's principle of freedom of religion. When people are oppressed, we should not be surprised if they strike back at their oppressors.

Oppressed you say? Not being able to wear some fabric on your head is ... oppressed? Oh my! Whatever shall we call not being able to practice our faith without harassment in Sa'udi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq? What's a neat freedom of religion word we can apply to beheadings, jailings, stonings, acid washes, bombings and general discrimination altogether? Do you have any idea of the concept of Dhimmitude? Do you know what Shari'a law is? Do you have any clue whatsoever, just an inkling, what will happen with an Islamic majority? Before you naively respond, I highly suggest you check out a Qur'an and a book on fiqh, while also studying up on shari'a law. A lot of these people will kill over a flippin' cartoon for Gods' sake!

And while we're on the subject of 'all laws prohibiting a particular religious act', you might wish to peruse a book on the world's major religions and their offshoots. Without going into detail, I'm pretty darn happy that there are many religious acts that are prohibited but a few of the more tame religious acts that come to mind that warrant being banned would be polygamy and drug use (Rasta's want to use marijuana, while certain Native American tribes of the Southwest want to use Peyote). Sorry to be such an oppressor.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

This is a silly law, and like all laws prohibiting a particular religious act, completely in violation of the EU's principle of freedom of religion. When people are oppressed, we should not be surprised if they strike back at their oppressors.

Oppressed you say? Not being able to wear some fabric on your head is ... oppressed? Oh my! Whatever shall we call not being able to practice our faith without harassment in Sa'udi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq? What's a neat freedom of religion word we can apply to beheadings, jailings, stonings, acid washes, bombings and general discrimination altogether? Do you have any idea of the concept of Dhimmitude? Do you know what Shari'a law is? Do you have any clue whatsoever, just an inkling, what will happen with an Islamic majority? Before you naively respond, I highly suggest you check out a Qur'an and a book on fiqh, while also studying up on shari'a law. A lot of these people will kill over a flippin' cartoon for Gods' sake!

And while we're on the subject of 'all laws prohibiting a particular religious act', you might wish to peruse a book on the world's major religions and their offshoots. Without going into detail, I'm pretty darn happy that there are many religious acts that are prohibited but a few of the more tame religious acts that come to mind that warrant being banned would be polygamy and drug use (Rasta's want to use marijuana, while certain Native American tribes of the Southwest want to use Peyote). Sorry to be such an oppressor.

+1

Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

Let women choose whether or not they want to wear a veil, not whether or not they want to murder their babies. Let people choose whether or not they want to use marijuana, not whether or not they want to sell pornography. Seems to me that common sense and human rights are victimized by both secularism and religious fundamentalism.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

Naпma Atef Amed is one of a handful of Quebecers who wear a niqab for religiousreasons. She will have to remove it to get any kind of public service. (CBC)

Muslim women and others with concealing headwear will have to uncover theirfaces when they deal with Quebec government services, under landmark legislationtabled Wednesday.

In tabling the controversial bill, Quebec has delved into sensitive territorywhere governments in Canada have largely avoided treading.

The bill says people obtaining — or delivering — services at places like theprovincial health or auto-insurance boards will need to do so with their facesin plain view.

The legislation says people's face coverings will not be tolerated if theyhinder communication or visual identification. The traditional Muslim niqabshows little more than a woman's eyes.

Quebec is drawing a line in defence of two principles, gender equality andsecular public institutions, Premier Jean Charest said at a news conferenceWednesday morning.

"This is a symbol of affirmation and respect — first of all for ourselves, andalso for those to whom we open our arms," Charest told reporters. "This is notabout making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that uniteus. ...

"An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equalitybetween men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state."

Fear to treadWhile the debate over such identity issues has raged in Europe for years,Canadian politicians have generally been reluctant to weigh in.

Charest's Liberal government has faced persistent criticism from those who sayit has done too little to draw up guidelines for accommodating minorities.

Quebec newspapers have been full of stories where people express outrage overperceived religious excesses, and the opposition has clobbered the government inthe legislature over its supposed inaction.

The bill, tabled by Justice Minister Kathleen Weil, explicitly points out thatany provisions are subject to the guarantees of gender and religious equalityoutlined in the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Quebec, the debate over face coverings has consumed a tremendous amount ofattention for what amounts to a minuscule number of cases.

Of the more than 118,000 visitors to the health board's Montreal office in2008-09 only 10 were niqab wearers who asked for special dispensation.

There were no such cases among the 28,000 visitors to the Quebec City servicecentre over the same time period.

I think it should depend on the type of veil. I don't see any reason to ban a woman from wearing a head scarf or headcovering in general and in fact I think it is wrong and a violation of her rights. On the other hand, if the veil is such that it completely covers the whole head and face so that there is only a small slit for the eyes, then I think it is a problem. For example, suppose a woman demands to wear such a veil when taking her driver's license test and photo. The photo ID would not be too useful in such a case.

I think it should depend on the type of veil. I don't see any reason to ban a woman from wearing a head scarf or headcovering in general and in fact I think it is wrong and a violation of her rights. On the other hand, if the veil is such that it completely covers the whole head and face so that there is only a small slit for the eyes, then I think it is a problem. For example, suppose a woman demands to wear such a veil when taking her driver's license test and photo. The photo ID would not be too useful in such a case.

I agree with you.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

I think it should depend on the type of veil. I don't see any reason to ban a woman from wearing a head scarf or headcovering in general and in fact I think it is wrong and a violation of her rights. On the other hand, if the veil is such that it completely covers the whole head and face so that there is only a small slit for the eyes, then I think it is a problem. For example, suppose a woman demands to wear such a veil when taking her driver's license test and photo. The photo ID would not be too useful in such a case.

I personally don't believe in rights, and I consider anything that can hinder identification to be a security risk. Beyond that, I am fine with headcoverings.

Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

This is unfortunate. This is not something to be happy about, they are just decreasing the rights of people to follow their faith and gives victory to secularism. Like Islam or not, one shouldn't praise something like this. How will we feel when the rights of Christians in these countries are also infringed upon? The French government believes this decision protects the dignity of women but they will not give Muslim women the dignity of dressing how they wish. I believe a decision like this will only cause more uproar from the Muslim world.

Well, my friend, this secularist nation of France can teach religious USA one lesson at least: in France the feast days of the church are not working day by law: 2 days for Christmas, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Pentecost Monday, Assumption day. I'm not sure about Epiphany and I'm too lazy to check right now.

That's interesting. A lot of people, including both Christians and non-Christians, believed that Africans enslaved by the white European slavemasters in the USA did have a right to their liberty.

How did I go from "I don't believe in rights..." to "I believe in enslaving people!" I said nothing of the kind. For the record, I do not advocate or condone slavery. At the same time....

In the West, we think in terms of rights. Almost all of the ancient world worked without our concept of rights. People then, and some people now, believed in things we should or should not do—we should love others and we shouldn't steal, cheat, or murder—but then there was a queer shift to people thinking "I have an entitlement to this." "This is something the universe owes me." Now we tend to have a long list of things that we're entitled to (or we think God, or the universe, or someone "owes me"), and if someone violates our rights, boy do we get mad.

But in fact God owes none of the things we take for granted. Not even our lives. One woman with breast cancer responded to what the women's breast cancer support group was named ("Why me?"), and suggested there should be a Christian support group for women with breast cancer called "Why not me?"

That's interesting. A lot of people, including both Christians and non-Christians, believed that Africans enslaved by the white European slavemasters in the USA did have a right to their liberty.

How did I go from "I don't believe in rights..." to "I believe in enslaving people!" I said nothing of the kind. For the record, I do not advocate or condone slavery. At the same time....

In the West, we think in terms of rights. Almost all of the ancient world worked without our concept of rights. People then, and some people now, believed in things we should or should not do—we should love others and we shouldn't steal, cheat, or murder—but then there was a queer shift to people thinking "I have an entitlement to this." "This is something the universe owes me." Now we tend to have a long list of things that we're entitled to (or we think God, or the universe, or someone "owes me"), and if someone violates our rights, boy do we get mad.

But in fact God owes none of the things we take for granted. Not even our lives. One woman with breast cancer responded to what the women's breast cancer support group was named ("Why me?"), and suggested there should be a Christian support group for women with breast cancer called "Why not me?"

That's interesting. A lot of people, including both Christians and non-Christians, believed that Africans enslaved by the white European slavemasters in the USA did have a right to their liberty.

How did I go from "I don't believe in rights..." to "I believe in enslaving people!" I said nothing of the kind. For the record, I do not advocate or condone slavery. .

OK. You clarified what you meant by that.

When i saw that you said that you did not believe in rights, I immediately thought of the slave and his right to freedom.

Ostensibly, the slave has no right to freedom. I do believe in responsibility though, and believe those who are free have a responsibility to free those who are in slavery...but I find too often people act as if God/the Universe/their country owes them something. That's where I disagree. These women do not have a right to where the veil. I believe the state has a responsibility to respect their religion and beliefs where it does not hamper security to do so, and in return the citizens have responsibilities to the State.

Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

This is unfortunate. This is not something to be happy about, they are just decreasing the rights of people to follow their faith and gives victory to secularism. Like Islam or not, one shouldn't praise something like this. How will we feel when the rights of Christians in these countries are also infringed upon? The French government believes this decision protects the dignity of women but they will not give Muslim women the dignity of dressing how they wish. I believe a decision like this will only cause more uproar from the Muslim world.

Well, my friend, this secularist nation of France can teach religious USA one lesson at least: in France the feast days of the church are not working day by law: 2 days for Christmas, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Pentecost Monday, Assumption day. I'm not sure about Epiphany and I'm too lazy to check right now.

Sorry, but what does this have to do with my post? Just because they get those days off doesn't mean anything really. Many get Christmas off in the US but I wonder how many actual celebrate the actual feast of Christ rather than a feast of merchandise.

Also, talking about the evils of Islam is irrelevant to the topic. Do you think that this law will bring good? Muslims can get worked up over a cartoon for instance so how do you think many will react to laws being imposed that limits how they practice their religion. Sure a head covering can be seen as a small thing but it is a very important thing to many Muslim women.

Ah, so are you ok if Muslim countries (or secular) pass laws that say that Christians don't have a right to wear a cross? In fact, Saudi Arabia has laws just like that. Christians don't have a right to wear a cross their according to their laws so if we support one country (France in this situation) for telling believers not to wear symbols of their faith and then condemn another one (Saudi Arabia) then is that hypocrisy?

Sorry, but what does this have to do with my post? Just because they get those days off doesn't mean anything really

It does, actually. It means that "secularism" is not that easy to define (v. USA having exclusively republican holidays); it means that religion is still enshrined in French public life and consciousness (due to France's strong Catholic roots "la fille ainee de l'Eglise") in a way that would be impossible in America, because of its Puritan heritage.So, I would say that USA is, at least, as secularist as France.

Ostensibly, the slave has no right to freedom. I do believe in responsibility though, and believe those who are free have a responsibility to free those who are in slavery...but I find too often people act as if God/the Universe/their country owes them something. That's where I disagree. These women do not have a right to where the veil. I believe the state has a responsibility to respect their religion and beliefs where it does not hamper security to do so, and in return the citizens have responsibilities to the State.

It may amount to the same thing as what you are talking about, although in different language, I am not sure. And I have to admit that the term rights has different meanings. In any case, I would argue that men have a right to life, the black African woman enslaved by the European male has a right to her liberty and as well Christians have the right to wear a cross.

This is unfortunate. This is not something to be happy about, they are just decreasing the rights of people to follow their faith and gives victory to secularism. Like Islam or not, one shouldn't praise something like this. How will we feel when the rights of Christians in these countries are also infringed upon? The French government believes this decision protects the dignity of women but they will not give Muslim women the dignity of dressing how they wish. I believe a decision like this will only cause more uproar from the Muslim world.

Well, my friend, this secularist nation of France can teach religious USA one lesson at least: in France the feast days of the church are not working day by law: 2 days for Christmas, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Pentecost Monday, Assumption day. I'm not sure about Epiphany and I'm too lazy to check right now.

That sounds so great. Here in the U.S.A. we are so secularist it is unbelievable. They even force most low level employees of convenience style stores to work on Christmas and Easter. It's unbelievable. I wish that we could be (or, at least respect) religion as much as other nations do.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

This quote from a discussion I had with a member of another board on this very issue is on point: "The history of France since the late 18th century was shaped by relations between the Catholic Church and the state. The Church was seen (quite rightly, too), as monarchist, reactionary and anti-democratic. Between the World Wars, the Church was so worried about communism that it threw its weight behind various neo-fascist as well as monarchist factions. After the fall of France, conservative Catholics--including quite a number of bishops--overwhelmingly backed the Vichy regime, which made an overt pitch for Catholic support by backing "faith, family, duty and country".

After the War, the piper had to be paid--not only the communists but also the Gaullists set out to limit the influence of the Church in French society by embedding secularism in the law--an objective in which they have succeeded all too well."

Although controversial, at least Patriarch Sergius of Russia's rapprochement with the Bolsheviks saved the Russian people from developing the obsessive love/hate relationship with their governments as was experienced by the RC states of Western Europe and Latin America. The ROC of the soviet era still got tarnished, but still came off as a friend of the people and society and not as the enemy of all human progress. The sad fact that the RCC never really learned how to do this in their dealings with Westen nations (It always had to be "either/or" with them) is the reason why they are helpless to stop the secular onslaughthey now face.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 02:48:49 AM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

The issue of "rights" is not as easy to understand as we may think. On the one hand, Moses demanded freedom for the Israelites; and he even demanded reparations when they were emancipated. But on the other hand, Our Lord emptied Himself of His rights and became obedient to death on the Cross. And we are called to have this same mind, the mind of Christ Jesus. [Philippians 2:5-8]

It seems to me that the Prophets and the Saints were very concerned about justice and rights for those who were oppressed, but they never demaded rights for themselves. Maybe that's the Christian approach we should have- seeking justice and rights for the oppressed while laying our own ostensible rights at the foot of the Cross.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

Ah, so are you ok if Muslim countries (or secular) pass laws that say that Christians don't have a right to wear a cross? In fact, Saudi Arabia has laws just like that. Christians don't have a right to wear a cross their according to their laws so if we support one country (France in this situation) for telling believers not to wear symbols of their faith and then condemn another one (Saudi Arabia) then is that hypocrisy?

"Orthodoxy has always been under terror, under persecutions, either the Turks, or the Tatars, or the great empires that surrounded us...it has always expected the worst! It is said that the Orthodox Church can not be Orthodox if it is not fought from all sides! It has always been fought and even this gave it life and forced it somehow to be vertical...[A period of peace] would weaken the spiritual attention of the faithful and the hierarchs....Vigilance, absolutely, otherwise it would not give saints! It gave saints when it was confronted with the Turks, the Tatars, and others!" - Fr. Ioanichie Balan

Imagine if some polynesian island had not been colonized and christianized and now, at in the 21st century Christian westerners were finally starting to settle there as immigrants. And this polynesian country, not being influenced much by the western world up until this point had maintained their historic mores about modesty and it was normal for women to go around topless. And what if, as more and more shirt wearing western women came into their country, they decided to pass a law that says women may no longer wear shirts in public.

Or what if the same sort of situation happened among some indigenous tribe in Papua New Guinea and, after becoming an independent republic they passed a law that all men must have their buttocks exposed.

This is a silly law, and like all laws prohibiting a particular religious act, completely in violation of the EU's principle of freedom of religion. When people are oppressed, we should not be surprised if they strike back at their oppressors.

This is a silly law, and like all laws prohibiting a particular religious act, completely in violation of the EU's principle of freedom of religion. When people are oppressed, we should not be surprised if they strike back at their oppressors.

Oppressed you say? Not being able to wear some fabric on your head is ... oppressed? Oh my! Whatever shall we call not being able to practice our faith without harassment in Sa'udi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq? What's a neat freedom of religion word we can apply to beheadings, jailings, stonings, acid washes, bombings and general discrimination altogether?

Religious oppression. What else would we call it?

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens